SCOTUS 4-4 decision hands public sector unions a victory

Updated 5:22 PM EDT, Tue March 29, 2016
A view of the US Supreme Court is seen March 18, 2016 in Washington, DC.
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images
A view of the US Supreme Court is seen March 18, 2016 in Washington, DC.
Now playing
01:05
Supreme Court's split decision gives unions a win
WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05:  The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Win McNamee/Getty Images
WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05: The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:32
SCOTUS: States can force tax on online shoppers
Jack Phillips Today Show
NBC
Jack Phillips Today Show
Now playing
02:18
Colorado baker: I couldn't create this cake
A wedding cake with statuettes of two men is seen during the demonstration in West Hollywood, California, May 15, 2008, after the decision by the California Supreme Court to effectively greenlight same-sex marriage. AFP PHOTO / GABRIEL BOUYS (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)
GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/AFP/Getty Images
A wedding cake with statuettes of two men is seen during the demonstration in West Hollywood, California, May 15, 2008, after the decision by the California Supreme Court to effectively greenlight same-sex marriage. AFP PHOTO / GABRIEL BOUYS (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)
Now playing
02:04
SCOTUS rules for baker in same-sex cake case
People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Now playing
01:44
SCOTUS wipes away lower court ruling
how the supreme court picks cases_00000000.jpg
how the supreme court picks cases_00000000.jpg
Now playing
01:39
How the Supreme Court picks its cases
Now playing
01:31
Supreme Court allows parts of travel ban
WASHINGTON - JUNE 25: The exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen June 25, 2007 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has ruled to give more freedom for interest groups and unions to run TV ads before elections, and also ruled to limit taxpayers' rights to challenge government initiatives as unconstitutionally promoting religion. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
File/Alex Wong/Getty Images
WASHINGTON - JUNE 25: The exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen June 25, 2007 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has ruled to give more freedom for interest groups and unions to run TV ads before elections, and also ruled to limit taxpayers' rights to challenge government initiatives as unconstitutionally promoting religion. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:05
Supreme Court throws out NC redistricting maps
Pro-choice activist, Alissa Manzoeillo, of Washington, D.C. waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court  on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the places restrictions on abortion clinics, as well as rulings in the former Virginia Governor's corruption case and a gun rights case.
Pete Marovich/Getty Images
Pro-choice activist, Alissa Manzoeillo, of Washington, D.C. waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the places restrictions on abortion clinics, as well as rulings in the former Virginia Governor's corruption case and a gun rights case.
Now playing
01:25
Supreme Court rules on Texas abortion law
Obama Supreme Court immigration ruling_00000000.jpg
Obama Supreme Court immigration ruling_00000000.jpg
Now playing
01:16
Obama responds to immigration ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown as the court meets to issue decisions May 23, 2016 in Washington, D.C.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown as the court meets to issue decisions May 23, 2016 in Washington, D.C.
Now playing
01:11
Supreme Court upholds affirmative action at university
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25: A gay marriage waves a flag in front of the Supreme Court Building June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court is expected rule in the next few days on whether states can prohibit same sex marriage, as 13 states currently do. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25: A gay marriage waves a flag in front of the Supreme Court Building June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court is expected rule in the next few days on whether states can prohibit same sex marriage, as 13 states currently do. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:36
GOP hopefuls denounce marriage ruling
The Justices of the US Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010 at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN (Photo credit should read TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)
TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images
The Justices of the US Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010 at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN (Photo credit should read TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:21
Supreme Court rules on EPA emissions limits
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown March 29, 2016 in Washington, DC following the first 4-4 tie in a case before the court.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown March 29, 2016 in Washington, DC following the first 4-4 tie in a case before the court.
Now playing
01:09
Supreme Court rules 7-1 in favor of death row inmate
A general view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 18, 2015. AFP PHOTO/JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)Supreme Court building exterior
JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images
A general view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 18, 2015. AFP PHOTO/JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)Supreme Court building exterior
Now playing
01:37
Supreme Court rules in favor of lethal injection drug
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26: The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. Today the high court, which has set aside six hours over three days, will hear arguments over the constitutionality President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26: The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. Today the high court, which has set aside six hours over three days, will hear arguments over the constitutionality President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:14
Supreme Court rules on congressional districting

Story highlights

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it was evenly divided in a case concerning public sector unions

The decisions affirmed the lower court decision in organized labor's favor

(CNN) —  

In an unexpected victory for union supporters, the Supreme Court said Tuesday it was evenly divided in a case concerning public sector unions, and therefore it affirmed the lower court decision in organized labor’s favor.

The result leaves intact a nearly 40-year-old precedent and is most likely reflective of the impact that Justice Antonin Scalia’s death had on pending cases.

At oral arguments, the high court seemed poised to deal a major blow to unions and overrule precedent, but with Scalia’s death there were no longer five justices available to do so.

The challenge was brought by a group of public school teachers in California – backed by the libertarian Center for Individual Rights, which, as non-members of the union, is required by California law to contribute to fees germane to collective bargaining.

The center argued that the fees violated its First Amendment right against compelled speech and urged the court to overturn precedent that held that while the unions could not mandate fees from non-members for ideological or political advocacy, it could charge for collective bargaining that goes to issues, such as wages and grievances.

Supporters of public sector unions feared that the court would wipe out that precedent and weaken the coffers at a time when union membership has been declining in general.

The ruling could have affected thousands of contracts and millions of employees.

At arguments, it seemed the conservative legal challenge might win five votes from the conservatives, but after Scalia’s death, the court was deadlocked 4-4.

“For several years, it had seemed increasingly clear that the court’s conservative majority would overrule the 1977 decision that had upheld these ‘agency-shop’ arrangements,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law and a CNN contributor.

“But with Justice Scalia’s death, the conservatives lost their majority – and, thus, their ability to change precedent. Today’s result isn’t a big surprise, but it is yet further indication of the problems posed by an eight-justice court,” he said.

President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s seat, though Republicans have said they want the next president to nominate the replacement. Garland is scheduled to have his first meeting with a Republican senator Tuesday when he sits down with Mark Kirk of Illinois, a centrist running for re-election in a Democratic-leaning state.

GOP senator to meet Supreme Court nominee

Twenty-five states currently forbid mandatory union fees, and lawyers for the teachers hoped the Supreme Court would extend that nationwide and deal a victory to teachers like lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs.

Michael A. Carvin, a lawyer for Friedrichs, argued in court papers that California law “requires thousands of public-school teachers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars” to the teachers union. He said that the distinction between permissible fees that are supposed to go toward collective bargaining and impermissible fees that go to political ideology is “unworkable” in the public sector. For instance, Carvin said state law authorizes teachers unions to bargain over class size and teaching tenure, two hotly debated policy issues that are currently playing out in the political debate.

His clients don’t want to have to pay fees for union positions that they don’t support. “Bedrock First Amendment principles forbid the compelled support of ideological advocacy,” Carvin said.

Lawyers for the California Teachers Association defended the state system and argued that the agency fees serve the interest of the state to engage in “orderly negotiation of terms and conditions of employment and resolution of employee grievances,” while at the same time ensuring the “fair allocation” of the costs that service all employees. They said the vast majority of issues on which the unions bargain are of interest to all union and non-union employees alike.

“Outlawing fair-share fees will override the judgments of 23 States plus the District of Columbia that have enacted statutory collective-bargaining frameworks covering public-education employees,” David C. Frederick, a lawyer for the union, argued in court papers. “It will also throw into disarray tens of thousands of collective bargaining agreements governing millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters, first responders and other public employees,” he said.

The Obama administration supported the unions in the case.

“Petitioners’ attempt to demolish this Court’s settled framework for analyzing conditions of public employment would astonish the Founding generation and would stamp out the State-by-State variation in public-employment structures that has been the hallmark of this Court’s First Amend